havan_agrawal

Shouldn't there also be a few "control" challenges sprinkled in where all three are the same color and there's no "right" answer? If the test is implemented well and/or there is no human bias (either from the previous question or from the positioning of the circles), then you'd expect to see a uniform distribution of answers on the control. If there is bias (e.g. some innate preference for the top circle (say)), that should get adjusted for in the final analysis.

I had a lot of trouble with "tuple": is it "too-pul", "tyu-pul" (like pupil) or "tupple" (like supple). I've heard it pronounced all ways by now

This feels like a particularly derogatory take on the OP's wife's home country, which is ironic given that TFA is about "horrendous dentistry" in the US. Literal comment from the article

"Dentists are not required to learn how to place implants in dental school, nor are they required to complete implant training before performing the surgery in nearly all states."

"I was frankly stunned at how bad some of these dentists were practicing,” Prisby said. “It was horrendous dentistry."

> In the wake of all this drama, a blog post titled "Y Combinator Traded Prestige for Growth" went viral and hit the top of Hacker News. Which you might have missed, because Hacker News — which is owned by Y Combinator — seems to have manually dropped the post lower in the rankings to suppress its visibility.

Is this true? I never thought HN moderated content critical of itself

I thought the whole point of download-only games is that they are not borrowable/lendable/resellable, so wouldn't allowing one-time only writes defeat the purpose?

I might be suffering from imposter syndrome, but I feel like I'm not the right audience for "taking advantage of boredom".

I feel people who benefit from this "diffuse state" are those who already have a base level of competence in their field or challenging problems they're trying to solve, and so boredom gives their brain an opportunity to express creativity in that domain.

For me, my brain is just "quiet" when bored. It doesn't come up with "novel ways to solve problem X", or "a brand new idea". When it is at all noisy, it is mostly regurgitation of thoughts I've already had before, replays of conversations from the past week, mundane things like that.

Does anyone else feel this way, or is it just me?

Your comment takes an (unfair IMO) position that it somehow matters what country the OP was in. It's not like the auth systems are designed for higher scrutiny in specific countries. There is more than one way to confirm identity, but somehow BigTech and Co keep assuming a happy path environment for you.

Case in point: my US bank insists on sending an OTP to my US number (and US number alone) for any transaction, making it impossible for me to move money when abroad. The problem exists in the other direction too, my foreign account only allows verification thru one mechanism. It's really frustrating.

"Learning How to Learn" BY Dr. Barbara Oakley really changed my perspective towards learning in my late 20s. I was starting to feel (of my own accord) that I was starting to lose/had already lost the cognitive function needed to learn as intensely as I had during my undergrad years. This course flipped that idea on its head, and gave me the tools and mental model to pick up learning new (and hard) things again.

Strongly recommend!

> armed with a new toolbox of Latin names for fallacies, eager students all too often delight in spotting fallacies in the wild, shouting out their Latin names (ad hominem!; secundum quid!) as if they were magic spells. This is what Scott Aikin and John Casey, in their delightful book Straw Man Arguments, call the Harry Potter fallacy: the “troublesome practice of invoking fallacy names in place of substantive discussion”.

Picking very specifically on the builder pattern: the whole point is to solve one or more of the following problems:

1. creating complex objects and having them valid at creation

2. many optional arguments for an object's construction

3. similar types for object construction

For e.g. in Java you might see something like:

  Point p = new Point(10, 0, 5); // (x=10, z=5)
  Point q = new Point(10, 2); // (x=10, y=2)

which may be problematic because

1. y needs to be specified explicitly to 0, because you can't expose an overloaded constructor that takes x and z (that would clash with the constructor that takes x and y

2. It _may_ not be evident that new Point(10, 0, 5); passes x, y and z in that order

3. It ties the constructor to the implementation. You can never expose a Point(double radius, double theta) constructor because that would clash with the Point(double x, double y) constructor.

The builder would solve all of these problems:

  Point p = Point.newBuilder()
                 .setX(10)
                 .setZ(5)
                 .build();

Python however doesn't necessarily need this pattern because idiomatically solves all three of these problems by providing

1. named arguments, and

2. default arguments

so you could have:

  p = Point(x=10, z=5)
  q = Point(10, 2)
  t = Point(radius=5, theta=45)

I feel the post completely glosses over this by providing a single super-class with the appropriate constructor, and overriding the methods in the sub-classes. What if I just have a single class that I want a builder for? I don't think it showcases the builder pattern at all, just method overloading in classes.